How will the Dalai Lama's successor will be chosen?
The Dalai Lama's successor will be born outside China, decided by the Gaden Phodrang Trust, not China.
China claims authority to select the next Dalai Lama, causing tension with Tibetans, India, and the US.
The Dalai Lama's presence in India strengthens Tibet's cause and India's leverage against China's global influence.
The choice of a successor to the Dalai Lama, the spiritual head of Tibetan Buddhists, is a matter of riveting interest not only for followers of his religion, but also China, India, and the United States, for strategic reasons.
The Nobel peace laureate, who turns 90 on Sunday, is regarded as one of the world's most influential figures, with a following extending well beyond Buddhism.
How was he chosen?
Tibetan tradition holds that the soul of a senior Buddhist monk is reincarnated after his death.
The 14th Dalai Lama, born as Lhamo Dhondup on 6 July 1935, to a farming family in what is now Qinghai province, was identified as such a reincarnation when he was just two years old.
A search party sent by the Tibetan government made the decision on the basis of several signs, such as a vision revealed to a senior monk, the Dalai Lama's website says.
The searchers were convinced when the toddler identified belongings of the 13th Dalai Lama with the phrase, "It's mine, it's mine".
In the winter of 1940, Lhamo Thondup was taken to the Potala Palace in Lhasa, the capital of today's Tibet Autonomous Region, and officially installed as the spiritual leader of Tibetans.
How will his successor be chosen?
In his book "Voice for the Voiceless", released in March 2025, the Dalai Lama said his successor would be born outside China.
The Dalai Lama has lived in exile in northern India since 1959, after fleeing a failed uprising against the rule of Mao Zedong's Communists.
He wrote that he would release details about his succession around the time of his 90th birthday.
On Wednesday, he ended years of waiting by his followers on the issue of his succession, saying the institution of the Dalai Lama will continue and that the Gaden Phodrang Trust had sole authority to recognise his reincarnation.
READ | US Vice President Vance invites Pope Leo, an American, to visit home
The Gaden Phodrang Trust is a non-profit organisation set up by the Dalai Lama. It is responsible for all matters related to him and acts on his behalf.
Earlier this week, while addressing a gathering in Dharamshala, he said: "There will be some kind of a framework within which we can talk about the continuation of the institution of the Dalai Lamas".
In a speech in 2011, the Dalai Lama mentioned how highly enlightened Buddhists can "manifest an emanation before death".
Some experts have speculated that it might mean the Dalai Lama possibly suggesting he could train a successor in his lifetime, but Tibetan officials say that is unlikely.
"He has said this institution will carry on, which means his incarnation will be born," said Dolma Tsering Teykhang, the deputy speaker of the Tibetan parliament-in-exile.
Our Dalai Lama will be reborn, and the institution will carry on.
The parliament-in-exile, based in the Himalayan town of Dharamshala, like the Dalai Lama, says a system has been established for the exiled government to continue its work while officers of the Gaden Phodrang Foundation will be charged with finding and recognising his successor.
The current Dalai Lama set up the foundation in 2015 to "maintain and support the tradition and institution of the Dalai Lama" with regard to his religious and spiritual duties, it says on its website. Its senior officers include several of his aides.
What does China say?
China says its leaders have the right to approve the Dalai Lama's successor, as a legacy from imperial times. A selection ritual, in which the names of possible reincarnations are drawn from a golden urn, dates to 1793, during the Qing dynasty.
Chinese officials have repeatedly said the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama should be decided by following national laws that decree the use of the golden urn and the birth of reincarnations within China's borders.
But many Tibetans suspect any Chinese role in the selection as being a ploy to exert influence on the community.
READ | Dalai Lama urges followers not to worry as China vows to choose successor
It is inappropriate for Chinese Communists, who reject religion, "to meddle in the system of reincarnation of lamas, let alone that of the Dalai Lama," the Buddhist leader has said.
In his book, he asked Tibetans not to accept "a candidate chosen for political ends by anyone, including those in the People's Republic of China," referring to the country by its official name.
Beijing brands the Dalai Lama, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989 for keeping alive the Tibetan cause, as a "separatist" and prohibits displays of his picture or any public show of devotion towards him.
In March 2025, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said the Dalai Lama was a political exile with "no right to represent the Tibetan people at all".
China denies suppressing the rights of the Tibetan people, and says its rule ended serfdom in, and brought prosperity to, a backward region.
What role could India and the US play?
Apart from the Dalai Lama, India is estimated to be home to more than 100 000 Tibetan Buddhists who are free to study and work there.
Many Indians revere him, and international relations experts say his presence in India gives New Delhi some kind of leverage with rival China.
The United States, which faces rising competition from China for global dominance, has repeatedly said it is committed to advancing the human rights of Tibetans.
US lawmakers have previously said they would not allow China to influence the choice of the Dalai Lama's successor.
In 2024, then US President Joe Biden signed a law that pressed Beijing to resolve a dispute over Tibet's demands for greater autonomy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
10 minutes ago
- CNN
Bessent says tariffs will ‘boomerang' to ‘Liberation Day' levels if countries fail to negotiate deals
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said tariff letters will be sent to about 100 countries over the next several days, as the Trump administration's 90-day tariff pause comes to an end Wednesday. 'If you don't move things along, then on August 1 you will boomerang back to your April 2 tariff level,' Bessent said about trading partners Sunday on CNN's 'State of the Union with Dana Bash.' President Donald Trump has suggested the letters would include duty rates at the current 10% baseline, or as extensive as 70%. Bessent said Sunday the United States would not impose 70% tariff rates on major trading partners. Bessent said that about 100 letters will be sent to small countries 'where we don't have very much trade,' many of which are 'already at the baseline 10%.' Trump on Friday touted letters as the 'better' option for countries that fail to negotiate deals before the July 9 deadline. On April 9, Trump announced a complete three-month pause on all the 'reciprocal' tariffs after insisting historically high tariffs were here to stay. Later that month, he told Time magazine that he had already struck 200 trade deals but declined to say with whom. So far, Trump has only announced deals with three countries: the United Kingdom, which maintained a 10% tariff rate; China, which temporarily paused sky-high duties on most goods from 145% to 30%; and a minimum 20% tariff on goods from Vietnam. In response to the three deals being described as 'frameworks,' Bessent said the upcoming letters 'will set their tariff rates. So we will have 100 done in the next few days.' 'Many of these countries never even contacted us,' he said, adding that 'We have the leverage in this situation,' as the country facing a trading deficit. Bessent said there may be 'several big announcements' this week, but declined to name countries that could reach deals. Bessent pushed back against August 1 as a new deadline. He also described the administration's plan as applying 'maximum pressure.' 'It's not a new deadline. We are saying, 'This is when it's happening. If you want to speed things up, have at it. If you want to back to the old rate, that's your choice,'' Bessent said about America's trading partners, and used the European Union as an example of countries coming to the table after Trump threatened 50% tariffs on EU imports. Economists have warned that Trump's trade war, especially the wide-ranging tariffs on Chinese imports, will increase costs for consumers. Some companies, including Walmart, have said they will raise prices for customers despite pushback from Trump. 'We have seen no inflation so far,' Bessent said on 'Fox News Sunday,' calling such projections 'misinformation' and 'tariff derangement syndrome.' Bessent and other Trump officials have repeatedly argued in recent months that countries like China would bear the cost of tariffs. US wholesale inflation rose slightly in May, driven in part by costlier goods, though tariff-related effects were largely muted. The Producer Price Index, a closely watched measurement of wholesale inflation, showed that prices paid to producers rose 0.1% in May, lifting the annual rate to 2.6%, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data released in June. Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, who has blasted Bessent for undermining the economic impact of tariffs, said Sunday on ABC's 'This Week' that tariffs 'will probably collect some revenue' but would come at the expense of higher inflation and less competitiveness for American producers. Also appearing on 'This Week,' Stephen Miran, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said there was no 'lasting evidence' that tariffs imposed on China during Trump's first term hurt the economy and the administration has only 'repeated the same performance' this year. 'Tariff revenue is pouring in. There's no sign of any economically significant inflation whatsoever and job creation remains healthy,' Miran said. CNN's Kit Maher and Alicia Wallace contributed to this report.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Putin says that globalisation is obsolete and the future belongs to emerging markets
MOSCOW (Reuters) -Russian President Vladimir Putin told BRICS leaders on Sunday that the era of liberal globalisation was obsolete and that the future belonged to swiftly growing emerging markets which should enhance the use of their national currencies for trade. Putin spoke via video link to the summit in Rio de Janeiro due to an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court which alleges he is responsible for war crimes in Ukraine. Moscow says the warrant is unfounded and pointless. BRICS - an idea thought up inside Goldman Sachs two decades ago to describe the growing economic clout of China and other major emerging markets - is now a group that accounts for 45% of the world's population. "Everything indicates that the model of liberal globalisation is becoming obsolete," Putin said in televised remarks. "The centre of business activity is shifting towards the emerging markets." Putin also called on the BRICS countries to step up cooperation in a range of spheres including natural resources, logistics, trade and finance. The five core BRICS members - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa - account for more than $28 trillion in nominal Gross Domestic Product in dollar terms while the Group of Seven accounts for more than $51 trillion, according the International Monetary Fund. Much of the economic clout of BRICS, which also includes Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates, though, comes from China, which accounts for more than 60% of the combined clout the BRICS members. Sign in to access your portfolio
CBS News
25 minutes ago
- CBS News
Transcript: Kevin Hassett, National Economic Council director, on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," July 6, 2025
The following is the transcript of an interview with Kevin Hassett, National Economic Council director, that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on July 6, 2025. WEIJA JIANG: We turn now to Kevin Hassett. He is the director of the National Economic Council and one of President Trump's top advisors. He's also very popular on that driveway where I'm usually alongside about a dozen reporters. So, Kevin, thank you so much for your time this morning. I want to start with trade, because there's a big deadline coming up on Wednesday. As you know, that 90-day pause on reciprocal tariffs that the President announced back in April is set to end. So far, the US has announced a few deals; the UK, Vietnam, and you're inching closer to a final agreement with China. Do you expect to get any more deals done with America's biggest trading partners by Wednesday? KEVIN HASSETT: Yeah. First, I do have to take- take a pause and share your thoughts and prayers with the people of Texas. It's an incredible, heartbreaking story, and Kristi Noem and the President have instructed the federal government to throw everything they've got at helping the survivors and helping clean up that place. So, anyway, I'm really heartbroken today to see these stories, and I want you to know that in the White House, everybody is putting every effort they can into helping the people of Texas today. On trade, there's going to be quite a bit of news this week. And, I think, the headline of the news is that there are going to be deals that are finalized. There are a whole number that Jameson Greer has negotiated with foreign governments, and then they're going to be letters that are sent to countries saying, here's how we think it ought to go, because the deals aren't advanced enough. And the headline is going to be that countries are agreeing around the world to open their markets up to our products, and to allow us to put some kind of tariff on their products when they come into the US. At exactly what the numbers will be, will be things that you'll find out in the news this week,. WEIJA JIANG: Kevin, you said there are going to be deals. For those really important trading partners, if there's not a deal by Wednesday, is the President going to extend this pause? KEVIN HASSETT: You know, the United States is always willing to talk to everybody about everything that's going on in the world. And there are deadlines, and there are things that are close, and so maybe things will push back the dead- past the deadline, or maybe they want- in the end, the President's going to make that judgment. WEIJA JIANG: And you also mentioned those letters that will start going out tomorrow, according to President Trump. He said about 10 to 12 countries will receive them. Do you- can you tell us who's going to get one and what they say? KEVIN HASSETT: Because- because, again, the part of the letter that could be happening right is that we're close to a deal, we're not really satisfied with the progress that we're making at the deal, and so we're saying, okay, fine, we're going to send a letter, but maybe you get a deal at the last minute too. Until we see everything that plays out, I think that we need to just hold our fire and watch for the news this week. WEIJA JIANG: Is it fair to say that those notices are going to go to our smaller trading partners, as you negotiate with our bigger ones? KEVIN HASSETT: I think that it could be that it'll be both. But also, don't forget, that when we have great trade deals, our smaller trading partners could become much bigger trading partners. And that's, I think, one of the reasons why countries are racing to set deals up with us ahead of the deadline. WEIJA JIANG: I have to ask you about the deadlines, Kevin, to make these deals, because you just mentioned you're always open. The president said there's not really any flexibility left between now and Wednesday. Less than two weeks ago, the Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that deals would be wrapped up by Labor Day. So, I wonder, you know, if- how can companies plan if the goal posts keep moving? How can countries negotiate if they don't even know how much time they have left? KEVIN HASSETT: Right. Well, the rough outlines of the deals are becoming clear to everybody, because we have some deals like the UK, and the Vietnam deal that are starting to be, you know, I guess, guidelines for what might happen. But, one of the things that we're seeing that's really interesting to me, is that people are just on-shoring production of the US at a record rate. As we've had record job creation, record capital spending, and this is even ahead of the Big, Beautiful Bill. And so, I think what's happening is that people are responding to President Trump's, you know, potential threats to have high tariffs on countries by moving their activity here into the US, which is creating jobs, more than 2 million jobs, since he took office, and raising wages. You know, wage growth is heading up towards the really, really high pinnacles that we saw in 2017. And so, I think there's a race right now to get activity into the US. And, in part, that race has been kicked off by President Trump. WEIJA JIANG: I remember after these reciprocal tariffs were announced, you told me that there were about 15 deals that countries were bringing to the President. How close, if you could give us any number at all, what number are we going to see this week? KEVIN HASSETT: Yeah, you'll have- you'll have to get that from Jameson and the President. I think that, you know, we've seen lots of deals that have been finalized by our negotiators, and then the President finds things that could make them better. And so, it's- I'm not going to get ahead of the President on the number of deals. WEIJA JIANG: Okay, thanks, Kevin. We'll look out for that. I want to move now to the One Big, Beautiful Bill that, of course, the President signed into law on Independence Day. You have it, and now you have to pay for it. And there's a consensus that this bill adds tremendously to the deficit. I know that you are so familiar with these numbers. The Yale Budget Lab estimates it will add $3 trillion to the debt. The Tax Foundation says this tax portion of the bill could also add $3 trillion to the deficit. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which factors in interest on the debt, says it could add up to $5 trillion over the next decade. And on this very program, even Speaker Johnson answered in the affirmative when asked if this bill would add over $4 trillion to the deficit. I know that the administration says the bill will actually shrink the deficit by $1.5 trillion. Help me understand why there is such a drastic difference between your number and all those others. KEVIN HASSETT: Well- well, first of all, let's remember that science is not democracy. Truth is not democracy. Our estimates are based on modeling that we used last time, when I was Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to say what would happen if we had a bill, how much growth we would get. And we said, and we were criticized soundly, that we would get 3% growth. And we even had the really technical macroeconomic models that said that we would get 3% growth. We run the same models through this tax bill, it's even better. And what we're seeing is that if you get 3% growth again, then that's $4 trillion more in revenue than the CBO and these other bodies are giving us credit for. They have been wrong in the past, and they're being wrong again, in our belief. But, the thing that disappoints me is that if I put out a model and I say, hey, here's what's going to happen, we're going to get 3% growth. And then it turns out it's 1.5% growth, then, as an academic economist, as a scientist, then it's my duty to say, what did I get wrong? What did my model miss? These people aren't doing that. And that's the thing that I find disappointing, because we put peer-reviewed academic stuff on the table, said we're going to get that 3% growth, and then we got it right last time, and we believe we're going to get it right this time. But, if you think that 1.8% growth is what's going to happen over the next 10 years, then you should agree with the CBO number. But, there's another part of the CBO number that you need to worry about. And that is that if we don't pass the bill, that it's the biggest tax hike in history. And with that big tax hike, that of course, we would have a recession. The CEA says that we'd have about a 4% drop in GDP and lose 9 million jobs. If we had a 4% drop in GDP and we lost 9 million jobs, what would happen to the deficit? And so, I don't think that the CBO has a very strong record. I don't think these places have a very strong record. And what they need to do is get back to the basics of looking at macroeconomic models. There's a really famous macroeconomist at Harvard named Jim Stock. They should go back and read everything Jim Stock has written for the last 15 years, and fold those into their models, and then maybe we could talk. WEIJA JIANG: I want to talk too, Kevin, about another number that I know you and the President disagree with, but that Democrats and many Republicans are worried about, and that's the CBO's projection that as many as 12 million Americans could lose Medicaid coverage because of this law. What is the NEC's estimate for how many people could lose coverage? KEVIN HASSETT: Well- well, yeah. Let's- let's unbundle that a little bit. Because, first, on the CBO coverage, so what are we doing? So, what we're doing is we're asking for a work requirement. But, the work requirement is that you need to be looking for work, or even doing volunteer work, and you don't need to do it until your kids are 14 or older. And so, the idea that that's going to cause a massive hemorrhaging in availability of insurance, doesn't make a lot of sense to us. And then, if you look at the CBO numbers, if you look at the big numbers, they say that people are going to lose insurance. About 5 million of those are people who have other insurance. They're people who have two types of insurance. And so, therefore, if they lose one, they're still insured. And so, the CBO numbers on that side don't make any sense to us at all. But, on the other side, go back to 2017 when we had work requirements for Obamacare, they said that we lose about 4 million insured between 2017 and 2019, and about double that over the next 10 years. And, in fact, the number of insured went up. It went up quite a bit, by more than 10 million over those two years, because the bottom line is, the best way to get insurance is to get a job. And we've got a Big, Beautiful Bill that's going to create a lot of job creation and a lot of insurance, and the CBO is just not accounting for that. And again, they need to go back and look at all the things that they got wrong. You realize that they're underestimating Medicaid spending by 20%. They should look back at all the things they got wrong, and explain what they're going to do to get it right in the future, and to do a better job. And if they do that, we'll take them more seriously. But right now, I don't think any serious thinker could take them seriously, because they've done so wrong, and wrong for so long. Even back- if you go back to when President Obama passed Obamacare, they got every single number there wrong about how many people would get private insurance and how few people would get Medicaid, and so on. And so, their record in this modeling space is about as bad as it's possible to be. In fact, you could, kind of, roll the roulette wheel and come up with a better set of numbers, better history, track record than CBO. WEIJA JIANG: Kevin, what about the enhanced subsidies? Is that number wrong too? That the ACA allows about $705 for people to help pay for their health insurance. That doesn't sound like the waste, fraud, and abuse that I know you and the President have talked about eliminating. That just sounds like people who cannot afford coverage, and now it's going to be even more so with the subsidies gone. KEVIN HASSETT: Right. Well- well, if you're- if you're looking at the- the change in the tax on the providers, which is something that has been a key talking point for the Democrats, they say that that's going to close down rural hospitals. What has happened is that, rather than let the states- the states have this game where they give a dollar to a hospital and then the federal government matches the dollar, and then the state taxes some of the dollar away. In other words, that we have an agreement with the states that they're going to match, but then they have this they have this trick where they tax the hospitals after they give them the money, so really, it's the federal government giving them the money. And that's why we've been overspending Medicaid by 20% since this trick started happening. And so, what we've done is that we've put a haircut on that. But, we've also put $50 billion into a trust fund to make sure that the rural hospitals are there to treat the sick. So, I think this is a prudent form. It's sound budgetary politics. And I think that nobody's going to lose their insurance. WEIJA JIANG: Kevin Hassett, we will watch for how that ages. Thank you very much. Really appreciate -- KEVIN HASSETT: - And if I get it wrong, we'll check, and we'll talk about why I got it wrong. I promise. WEIJA JIANG: Thank you. We'll have you back. Thank you very much, Kevin.
